Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David B. Harris

GET UPDATES FROM David B. Harris
 

Canada's Libyan Misadventure

Posted: 10/28/11 11:47 AM ET

Now that Moammar Gaddafi is gone, who will protect Canadians from the consequences of our 'victory' in Libya?

Canada and its allies claim their war against the Gaddafi regime was justified under the new international Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. R2P guarantees people protection in various situations. Genocide? War crimes? Time for regime change? Under R2P, almost anything seems possible.

So, Canada responded to the colonel's threats against dissidents by clearing the Gaddafi Gang out of the Libyan corral.

But here's the problem.

Before all this, monstrous Moammar was playing pretty straight with us. He had largely backed away from terrorism. And thanks to the 2003 U.S. Iraq invasion, he got the message, ditched nuclear research and spilled the beans on his atomic suppliers.

Yes, Gaddafi would have slaughtered thousands in response to the Libyan uprising. But Canadians were, by and large, safe. Our R2P operations in Libya have changed that.

We launched a regime-change operation without any idea who would replace Gaddafi. In an orgy of post facto fact-finding, Foreign Minister John Baird raced into Libya with the foregone political conclusion: the rebels are our pals. French President Sarkozy achieved something similar by sending philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy -- "God is dead but my hair is perfect," goes the current jibe -- to Libya to rubber stamp comparably rash declarations.

Such people were oblivious to the Sinjar Records. These captured documents pinpoint origins of foreign terrorists in Iraq, and give evidence of the kinds of Islamists who might replace Gaddafi. West Point's Combating Terrorism Center concluded from these papers that Libya supplied roughly double per capita the terrorists provided by that 9/11 terrorist launch-pad, Saudi Arabia.

As one news source reported, "of the half of Libyans who listed their "work" in Iraq, more than 85 per cent volunteered to be suicide bombers." Nice work if you can get it.

As an illustration of the possibilities, consider that today's garrison-commander of the all-important Tripoli area is Abdul Hakim Belhadj, an apparent extremist. A veteran of the 1980s' Afghan jihad, he is reportedly a former head of the Islamist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Belhadj led the country's al-Qaeda underground, and was targeted by the CIA's renditions' program.

Then there were people like Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, veteran of the Afghan jihad who was released from Guantanamo prison. Now a significant rebel leader, Qumu was declared by U.S. authorities "a probable member of al-Qaeda," according to the New York Times.

Add to this, reports that Sudan's army -- the sharp end of Khartoum's genocidal Islamist regime -- may have fought in Libya on the side of our National Transitional Council 'allies,' and be ready to shape the new Libyan leadership -- with Iran's help.

Then there is the draft Libyan constitution, imposing Sharia Islamic law. Such systems in other countries commonly manifest themselves in various forms of religious and gender apartheid. In Saudi Arabia, Iran and -- increasingly -- 'Arab Spring' Egypt, for example, non-Muslims are debased as second-class citizens, or worse, and women valued in fractional terms of men. As though to demonstrate the threat, the new post-Gaddafi acting Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril announced as a first act of "liberation" the quashing of Gaddafi laws banning polygamy.

Now that the possibility of a radical-Islamic Libya is finally dawning on western leaders, the White House and its allies have something further to fear: obtuse war-planning may have caused about 20,000 portable Libyan surface-to-air (SAM) missiles to go missing. Missiles like this eat airliners for breakfast.

Our political commanders ignored facts, especially this one: without enough boots on the ground, you cannot guard the arms depots of the state you've R2Ped into chaos. Guns and bombs -- and 20,000 missiles -- can go loose, be used by enemies to kill our forces and, eventually, average citizens here at home.

In this regard, it is amazing that air passengers weren't worthy of a little R2P-type concern when governments were planning Gaddafi's demise. We've known for decades that airliners have been dead ducks in the sights of SAMs. Only now are our blindsided governors thinking to ask how that radar-jamming-anti-heat-seeking-infrared research stuff is going.

So what is the result of all this R2P adventuring?

Canada charged into a military mission with no guarantee about which of our enemies might ultimately run Libya as a base targeting Canadians. Muslim Brotherhood? Al-Qaeda? Iran? Sudan? Some combination?

And to reinforce the risks, we supported international funding of Libya's new jumble of leadership, a leadership that is proving sympathetic to Sharia impositions.

Meanwhile, North Korea tells Britain's ambassador that the Libyan intervention taught Kim Jong-Il never to give up his nukes. Gaddafi did, they said, and look what happened to him. Has Canada helped save thousands in Libya only to hazard the future of millions of potential nuclear victims, including those West Coast Canadians within Pyongyang's ballistic missile range?

Concurrent with all this, Libya becomes an international weapons Wal-Mart that is literally going great guns in the Proliferation Department. Al-Qaeda and Iran's Quds Force are making off with everything from bullets to missiles.

True, most of this material could get detonated in the region. But you never know when some of it might come up to greet you on your next carefree airline descent into a Canadian airport.

Who will have the responsibility to protect you then?


David B. Harris, director of the International Intelligence Program of INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc., is a lawyer with 30 years in intelligence affairs. This is an updated an expanded version of articles appearing in the Calgary Herald and Ottawa Citizen.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:39 AM on 10/29/2011
People might have this thought along the Libyan Rebel.However it isn't the Motive to judge Canada's involvement.With a General from Canada's Military commanded NATO force,it is with U.K's Position.
There's amazing chance for Canada to tell whoever about our Country Power to defend its Territory.
The way Mister PM,Harper practices,it isn't too late yet,for up scale to be in use;in case,those,who
think "Canada not yet a qualify Player independent" for its own Cause.
06:24 PM on 10/28/2011
You disgust me David Harris. Simply disgust me.

Canadians go into these situations whether or not it's advantageous for them. We do it because we'd want someone to do the same if it happened to us. Was Gaddafhi playing nice on the international stage? Yes. Was he murdering citizens in order to remain in power? Yes. Whole sale slaughter of citizens is not representing the needs of the people. The first, and greatest, responsibility of a government.

You've also ignored the fact that the UN said it would step in once NATO's mission was done in order to set up a proper government. Peace keeping of today is not the peace keeping of the past. You of all people, being in international security, should be aware of this.
04:07 PM on 10/28/2011
What Canada needs to do is to recognize that its own best path to safety and security does not involve automatically require it to say "Me too!" every time that the USA wants to go to war. Thank God that Chretien, like him or not on other issues, had enough common sense not to accept the invitation to bankrupt Canada by invading Iraq.

What would be helpful in a legal sense would for a law to be passed which would limit the PM's power to commit Canadian armed forces to hostilities in foreign countries without approval by the legislature. Of course, this would also require legislative backbone, which was sorely lacking on the Libyan adventure, but it would be a start.

Foreign military adventures not motivated by direct defense of this country are rarely, if ever, justified and no good ever seems to come of them. Cases in point for Canada: Afghanistan and Libya. Cases in point for USA: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia (all current conflicts).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:55 PM on 10/28/2011
Thank you Mr. Harris for your excellent article. I was horrified when I found my country involved in the "liberation" of Libya. I am mad at NATO and Harper, and I hope someone takes every western country involved to court over this. Who are we to gang together to overthrow governments and get involved in sovereign countries' internal affairs? I can't believe that things got that far that now we can do this. Never mind the consequences to us, we deserve it, we reap what we sow. But what about the people of Libya? Of all the brainless things our politicians could've done.... But what can I expect from our leadership when we do nothing but follow wherever our southern neighbour goes.
Our government keeps kissing arses, our diplomats walk out on UN speeches their delicate ears are too sensitive to hear.... Who really represents the Canadian people's wishes?
I'd say that this whole thing is a joke, except it's just too tragic. What a royal f***up.
Unbelievable. :-(
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
11:49 AM on 10/28/2011
I will never understand how someone can claim to support democracy and freedom, but then argue that it would be better to tolerate a dictator than risk a democracy that produces results we do not like. Such weak support is, in my opinion, merely a shield for anti-democratic leanings. We do not have to like the results of an election, but when we interfere we make our relationship with those people a negative one. For example, when the US helped overthrow the democratic government in Iran, the result has been terrible, with Iran now viewed as one of America's primary enemies. Iran would not be such a threat if it had been allowed to determine its own course.